[cisco-voip] MRGL question

[Ted Nugent]

There is no good reason to have other remote sites in a particulars remote
site MRGL... thats actually a horrible idea and whomever wrote that should
be beaten...

site1-MRGL:
site1-MRG
SUB1-SW-MRG
SUB2-SW-MRG
PUB-SW-MRG

If there are hardware resources at corp then sandwich them in accordingly.



On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Mike Thompson <mthompson729 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Is this a question of best practice design or for the lab?
>
> Sent from my phone, apologies for any typos.
>
> On May 16, 2011, at 6:36 PM, george.hendrix at l-3com.com wrote:
>
>  Hi all,
>
>
>
>   I have a question about media resource group lists.  I have read in a
> Cisco document to have a MRG for each site, and then to have that site’s
> MRGL contain its MRG as the first choice, followed by the MRG of the hub
> sites, then the MRGs the other remote sites after this.  Is that pretty much
> right?
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
>
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20110518/6b435fc5/attachment.html>